M. C. MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Coram

B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE

Citation

, , , ,

Head Notes

Held the order passed by Supreme Court was quite clear and had been
correctly understood by all concerned and authorities-Application for
clarification of order consequently rejected.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 13029 of 1985 Etc.

Subject

Roadside Hoardings-Consequential disturbance to safe traffice movement-
Order dated 20th November 1997 passed by Supreme Court-Directions given
therein by Supreme Court for removal of road-side hoardings-Steps taken by
authorities pursuant to order passed by Supreme Court-Application filed by
Delhi Outdoor Advertisers Association for clarification and modification of
order-Contention that order enables the authorities to act arbitrarily held
not correct

Judgment

PETITIONER:
M. C. MEHTA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/1997
BENCH:
B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
with WP (C) 9300/82, 939/96, & 95/97, & IA 7-8/11-13 in WP
(C) 13029/85
O R D E R
IA No. 11
The application stands disposed of.
IA No. 12
This application is made by Delhi Outdoor Advertisers
Association. The prayer in the application is for
clarification/modification of the order dated November 20,
1997 in so far as it relates to the direction given therein
for the removal of all hoardings which are on road-sides and
which are a disturbance to safe traffic movement. Having
heard Shri G.Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel for the
applicant, and the learned amicus curiae, we are satisfied
that this application must be rejected. We have perused the
notice published by the Commissioner of M.C.D. warning all
advertisers/owners of hoardings in Delhi to remove such
hoardings and also the notices issued thereafter as result
of non-compliance of the notice by some persons. We are
satisfied that the steps taken are in the proper direction
to identify and remove these hoardings. Shri G.Ramaswamy
submitted the order enables the authorities to act
arbitrarily and to remove any hoarding at their will which
should not correct. The order made by this Court on November
20, 1997, which was duly publicised has directed in the
order itself publicity through the electronic media and is

obviously well-known to every one. The applicants belong to
a category who would undoubtedly be aware of the order and
its requirement. Even thereafter, a notice requiring
compliance was published in the newspapers and in addition,
in case of continuing default, individual notices were
issued some of some of which were shown to us by the learned
counsel. There is, thus, sufficient notice to every person
and no further notice of the kind suggested by Shri
Ramaswamy is required to any advertiser/owner of the
hoardings. The order dated November 20, 1997 is quite clear
and has also been correctly understood by the authorities
and all concerned. It directs the authourities to `remove
all hoardings which are on road-sides and which are
hazardous and a disturbance to safe traffic movement'. There
is ambiguity in the order. It is obvious that every
hoarding, other than traffic signs and road signs on the
road-sides have to be removed irrespective of its kind;
every hoarding irrespective of whether it is on the road-
side of not which is hazardous and a disturbance to safe
traffic movement so as to adversely affect free and safe
flow of traffic is required to be identified by the
authorities and promptly which is a disturbance to safe
traffic movement has to be a hoarding visible to the traffic
on the road. No other detail or further guideline is
required for appreciating this order and its implementation.
Even though the order dated 20.11.1997 was explicit and very
clear, yet these further observations are made to leave on
one in any doubt of the content and requirement of out
order.
We reiterate the direction given in our order dated
November 20, 1997 that the order made by us even in respect
of the hoardings is required to be required to be
implemented notwithstanding any other or directions
including stay orders/injunctions granted by any authority,
court or tribunal to the contrary.
Interlocutory Application is, therefore, disposed of.